How many judgments cite CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co.?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co. (260 ITR 371), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 234A.

CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co.

260 ITR 371High Court2003#5113 most cited

What is CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co. authority for?

Interest, rent, and miscellaneous receipts are considered operational income derived from incidental business activities. Courts may err in not following jurisdictional High Court decisions regarding the classification of such income, particularly when calculating deductions under Section 80HHC.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bangalore Clothing Co. · 260 ITR 371 · Section 80HHC · incidental business income · rent · interest · miscellaneous receipts · operational income · jurisdictional High Court decisions

Also reported as

127 Taxmann 637

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 90(3)illegal payment section 43b(a)section 256(2)business transfer agreement section 47 section 80m depreciation on goodwill slump sale section 80h

Judgments citing CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co.

ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Shrinivas G. Mittapalli, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6402/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2005-06)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80I

…s 80IB of the Act on job work charges received in the course of manufacturing activity and whether the job work charges form part of income derived from industrial undertaking or not is a highly debatable issue. In fact, in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co., 260 ITR 371 (Bom) the jurisdictional High Court has held that 90% of job work charges cannot be excluded for computing relief u/s 80HHC on job work charges. The finding of the Tribunal that job work charges earned by the assessee is by using the machinery and manufacturing activity and thus they are income derived from industrial undertaking is affirmed. Thu…

M/S. the Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7524/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Cc-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Taxing Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B R.W.S.2(42C) Arising On The Transfer Of The Bopp Films Undertaking To Xpro India Ltd. (Xil). 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. This Ground Relates To Taxation Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B Read With Section 2(42C) Of The I.T. Act. The Facts In Brief Relating To This Addition Are That During The Previous Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into A Business Transfer Agreement (Bta) With Xpro India Ltd (Xil) For Sale Of Its Bopp Films Undertaking At Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh As A Going-Concern For A Total

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 2Section 50B

…account for working out the profits of the business for availing the relief under section 80HHC The view that we are taking in the matter is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bangalore Clothing Co., reported in 260 ITR 371 (Born). 8. Next issue that comes for adjudication is as to whether 90% of net receipts falling tinder clause (baa(I) should be excluded or 90% of gross receipts should be excluded. In this connection also the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co. (supra) is relevant. In the case of Bangalore Clothing Co.…

Commnr.of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram vs. M/S Baby Marine Exports Kollam

Appeals stand disposed of in terms of our

C.A. No.-006146-006146 - 2005Supreme Court30 Mar 2007

For Respondent: M/s Baby Marine Exports, Kollam

Section 80Section 80H

…nd that it is neither brokerage nor commission nor interest nor rent nor charges etc. Mr. Ganesh, referred to the decision of Bombay http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10 High Court in CST v. Bangalore Clothing Company reported in 260 ITR 371 wherein the Bombay High Court has referred to and followed the Circular No.621 issued by the CBDT dated 19th December, 1991. The High Court has explained that the object of the Explanation (baa) to Section 80-HHC is to exclude profit receipts from the business which do not have an element of turnover and which are not connected with the as…